• Poringo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    Unpopular opinion, but I left Oppenheimer at the 40 minutes mark. The main character was so unlikable, the movie pretentious, and I hated there was some kind of trial going on, but I had no context. So I left and did something better with my time.

    • melisdrawing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      I am so glad I waited for streaming on this one. It was fine, but way longer than it needed to be and convuluted as hell. I am glad to not be alone. That movie sniffs its own farts.

    • pr06lefs@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah I thought it was pretentious as hell. Par for the course from Christopher Nolan, making movies with ‘deep meaning’ feels that really aren’t that deep actually.

      • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        He just has to overcomplicate things with some timeline fuckery. every. single. movie.

        • Memento: timeline is backwards
        • Inception: time runs at different rates in the real world vs the dream
        • Dunkirk: 3 timelines running at different speeds (1 hour, 1 day, 1 week)
        • Interstellar: time looping back on itself + time running at a different rate due to black hole fuckery
        • TENET: yeah …
        • Oppenheimer: constant jump cuts between different periods in Oppenheimer’s story

        Mind you, some of those are good movies and I can tolerate some of the timeline fuckery, but it’s really becoming a gimmick.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Same. I stopped after about 20 minutes. I love science and know the history, so the art part ended up feeling waaaay too pretentious being dragged out for extra seconds in every damn scene. No wonder the movie’s so long when they’re wanking every scene…

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I didn’t review the movie poorly. I also admit that the art might not have come off so pretentious if I didn’t know the history well already.

          Your assumptions prove your own point, because you don’t know how to judge shit.

        • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          You people are what keeps a thoroughly-mid director like Nolan overhyped and getting nominated for Oscar’s for some reason.

    • Yankee_Self_Loader@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m with you to a point. There were many points in the movie where I turned to my wife and asked “I thought we were building a bomb?” I’ll say that it wasn’t a terrible movie but I think I would have enjoyed a documentary on Oppenheimer or the development of the bomb rather than a biopic where the director needs to make art.

    • Moreless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      This movie sucked. If they told it in sequential order this movie would have bombed. Showing the scenes out of order made it more interesting than it had any right be

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Classic Nolan trick: perplex your audience with non-linear story telling and loud blaring audio contrasted by whisper dialogue to sell the illusion of depth and tapestry…